' SPACE SHUTTLE

\ ' #

LIBRARY COPY I
NASA-NP- 1 17 19900067190

UMGLEY
RESEARCH CFM:
LIGRAiiY h::ck
? -
HAMPTuN
- v f , -1 1 ;_
2
 re risk great peril
if we kill off the
spirit of adventure,
for we cannot pre-
dict how and in
what seemingly
unrelated fields it
will manifest itself.
A nation which
loses its forward
thrust is in danger,
and one of the most
effective ways to
retain that thrust is
to keep exploring
possibilities. The
sense of exploration
is intimately bound
up with human
resolve, and for a
nation to believe
that it is still com-
mitted to forward
motion is to ensure
its continuance.

[chardH. Truly is
the NASA Auociate
Administrator for
Space Flight. A Rear
Admiral in the United
States Navy, Admiral
huly was previously
the first Commander
of the Naval Space
Command. An
astronaut, he piloted
thc8econd space
Shuttle flight in 1981
and commanded the
Challenger in 1983
during the eighth
flight of the Shuttle.
1
SPACE SHUTTLE
I LIBRARY COPY 1 The Journey Continues

RADM Richard H. Truly, USN

 The Space Shuttle is important because
space transportation and manned space flight are
now essential to the well being of the United
States.
Space has become a place where extremely
useful and worthwhile activities occur, and space
transportation is always the first step. Some of
these activities can be done only in space. Some
can be done better in space than on Earth. No
longer limited to high adventure and occasional
spectaculars, space provides practical benefits we
now take for granted. It also provides opportu-
nities for science, commerce, and international
cooperation.
The practical benefits are many. Commu-
nications, navigation, and weather prediction are
all now space dependent. Remote sensing space-
craft aid a host of other activities including
agriculture, petroleum exploration, map making,
environmental protection, and urban planning.
In truth, our society has come to rely upon
the now everyday capability of modern space
systems.
Science also benefits from space. Space
provides such a rich environment for the
2 advancement of knowledge that science and
technology now have a core dimension rooted in
space. Research in space is remarkably diverse.
It examines near-term concerns such as ozone
depletion that may affect the atmosphere's abil-
ity to shield us from harmful radiation. It seeks
ultrapure pharmaceuticals, uniform semi-
conductor crystals, and new glasses and alloys
from the microgravity environment of space.
With a longer focus, it looks at the Sun and the
planets to learn more about life and the one
planet in the solar system that supports it. And,
with incredibly sophisticated orbiting obser-
vatories, space research peers across the
electromagnetic spectrum into distant galaxies in
search of answers to fundamental questions
about human and physical existence.
Yet space is more than a laboratory for
science or a source of practical applications. It is
also a place of business. Private companies con-
duct extensive activities focusing upon space.
Some build space hardware; some sell support
equipment and services. Some simply utilize the
capabilities provided by spacecraft. Newspapers,
for example, rely upon space systems for print-
ing. Space is a place of profit and of competition.
 This competition is not simply commercial in
character. In the decade of the 1980's, the space
programs of Europe have matured and challenge
our own. Japan and China are becoming major
spacefaring nations. The Soviet Union is accel-
erating its already impressive space program.
These countries understand that profit,
productivity, prestige, and power are the prod-
ucts of investments in space. U.S. leadership
among spacefaring nations has eroded. The im-
plications of this affect not only our science,
technology, and commerce, but alsoour national
security. As importantly, it affects the con-
fidence with which Americans face the future.
While competition in space flourishes, so
does international cooperation. At the same
time that we compete, we conduct cooperative
activities. Through NASA, the United States has
engaged in a large number of highly successful
space missions with alliesand friends. These mis-
sions are usually scientific in character. While
they support our foreign policy objectives, they
more directly add to our storehouse of knowl-
edge. And they demonstrate the peaceful use of
space for the benefit of all.
3
 PAYLOADS AND
PEOPLE TO ORBIT
To realize the vast potential of space and to
achieve the benefit from space in science, tech-
nology and commerce, you must first get there.
Transportation, as always, is critical. Payloads
must be placed in orbit. The Space Shuttle is
important because it carries these payloads into
space. The Shuttle is a heavy lift launch vehicle.
The United States relies on the Shuttle to trans-
port a variety of spacecraft to where they need to
go. If the destination is low Earth orbit, the
Space Shuttle brings them up. If the objective is
geosynchronous orbit or another planet, the
Shuttle brings the payload to about 250 miles
above the Earth from where it is propelled to its
destination. Despite its technical complexity and
sophistication, the Space Shuttle is conceptually
simple. It is a truck to transport things into
space. During the first period of Shuttle opera-
tions, from 1981-1986, it hauled a vast amount
of cargo. Four orbiters, in 24 flights, carried
numerous payloads aloft, as shown on page 6.
The future looks equally busy. The Space
4 Shuttle's manifest continues to be booked out to
the horizon of our planning. I have no doubt the
Shuttle will be flying throughout the first decade
of the twenty-first century, lifting payloads into
orbit and demonstrating its value as a national
space launch vehicle.
But the Space Shuttle is much more than
simply a launch vehicle. What makes it unique,
what marks it as a resource of extraordinary
value to the United States, is that it carries more
than heavy cargo. It transports men and women
into space. It enables them to live and work on
orbit and then returns them safely to Earth.
Moreover, the Shuttle is reusable---the first such
craft in the world. The Space Shuttle works in
four distinct regimes: it is a launch vehicle bring-
ing people and payloads to and from space. As a
versatile spacecraft circling the Earth, it provides
time on orbit for human beings. It is a reentry
vehicle gliding safely through the atmosphere at
such high speed that the molecules of air have
difficulty getting out of the way. And then, at the
end of its flight profile, the Shuttle is an aero-
dynamic vehicle---a glider that is flown to land
upon a runway.
The fundamental purpose of the Space Shut-
tle is to place human beings into space, then
return them safely and lift them aloft once again.
_y bringing payloads and people back from
space, the Space Shuttle provides a capability of
enormous significance. It is the world's first
reusable spacecraft and will haul crew and cargo
to and from space well into the twenty-first
century.
 Space Shuttle Flights 1981-1986

ORBITER DATE PAYLOAD

1. Columbia April 12, 1981 Flight Instrumentation

2. Columbia November 12, 1981 OSTA-1, First RMS, Flight

Instrumentation

3. Columbia March 22, 1982 OSS-1, Flight Instrumentation

4. Columbia June 27, 1982 DOD, Flight Instrumentation

5. Columbia November 11, 1982 SBS-C, Telesat E

6. Challenger April 4, 1983 TDRS A

7. Challenger June 18, 1983 SPAS-01, OSTA-2, Telesat F,

Palapa B-1

8. Challenger August 30, 1983 PDRS/PFTA, OIM, INSAT 1-B

9. Columbia November 28, 1983 Spacelab 1

6 10. Challenger February 3, 1984 SPAS-01A, Palapa B-2, Westar 6

11. Challenger April 6, 1984 LDEF, SMM Repair

12. Discovery August 30, 1984 OAST-1, SBS-D, Telestar 3-C,

Syncom IV-2

13. Challenger October 5, 1984 OSTA-3, ERBS, LFC/ORS

14. Discovery November 8, 1984 HS-376 RETV(2), Telesat H,

Syncom IV-1

15. Discovery January 24, 1985 DOD

16. Discovery April 12, 1985 Telesat I, Syncom IV-3

17. Challenger April 29, 1985 Spacelab 3

18. Discovery June 17, 1985 Spartan, Morelos A, Arabsat I-B,

Telestar 3-D

19. Challenger July 29, 1985 Spacelab 2

20. Discovery August 27, 1985 Aussat 1, ASC-1, Syncom IV-4

21. Altantis October 3, 1985 DOD

22. Challenger October 30, 1985 Spacelab D-1

23. Atlantis November 26, 1985 EASE/ACCESS, Morelos B,

Satcom KU-2, Aussat 2

24. Columbia January 12, 1986 MSL-2, Satcom KU-1, Gas Bridge

25. Challenger January 28, 1986 TDRS B

 MEN AND WOMEN
IN SPACE
The rationale for having men and women in
space rests upon utility as much as anything else.
While there is an emotional, intangible dimen-
sion to the human presence in space, there is,
decidedly, a compelling practical value as well.
The presence of astronauts significantly en-
hances the utility of spacecraft. The output, the
results and the benefits derived are far greater
when humans are present. After all, human be-
ings are the most sophisticated machines of all.
Their creativity, their dexterity, their ability to
perceive, their interaction with instruments and
each other, and their ability to respond to the
unexpected are unmatched. Whether piloting
the Shuttle, controlling its Remote Manipulator
System (the Shuttle's Canadian developed high-
tech crane), or conducting scientific experiments
in Spacelab (the European laboratory module
that sits in the payload bay), the presence of a
crew brings unique and extraordinary capabil-
ities to space. Humans can fix things. They can
redirect or reprogram their activities. As Neil
Armstrong showed during the Apollo 11 de- 7
scent to the lunar surface, they can steer clear of
unexpected obstacles. They also can do what ma-
chines simply cannot. They can act upon
hunches and they can channel intuition. Al-
though requiring extensive life support systems,
humans in space bring expertise and imagination
to the cockpit and to the laboratory. Their pres-
ence increases immeasurably our orbital
capabilities.
Space science traditionally has been best
served by a balance of manned and unmanned
missions. The crew's influence on the three
Spacelab flights and in the conduct of numerous
middeck experiments has demonstrated great
benefits. Having scientists in the laboratory is
hardly revolutionary. We do it all the time on
Earth. On Earth the scientist prepares the
experiment, monitors its progress, and shuts it
down when necessary. The scientist in space
interacts with the experiment in the same way.
He or she reads the data and makes realtime
adjustments. The scientist is there to interpret,
to react, to fix, and to do it again. When we have
the capability to place scientists in an orbiting
laboratory, as we do now with Shuttle and will be
able to do so more extensively in the future with
the Space Station, we do so. When simply not
 possible, as in a mission to the outer planets, we
do not. We then rely upon sophisticated un-
manned spacecraft. Each approach is valid. Each
brings rewards. In a balanced approach to space
exploration, NASA conducts both unmanned
research and manned space flight. Each has its
place. And neither is independent of the other.
The unmanned scientific expedition requires the
guiding hand of the flight director and the flex-
ible mind of the principal investigator (they just
happen not to be onboard). And when the astro-
nauts are conducting experiments in Spacelabor
on the middeck, they are completely dependent
upon automated systems that sense, calculate,
and switch at speeds and reliability no human can
match. Manned space flight requires the tech-
nology of unmanned systems. Unmanned
scientific spacecraft require the presence of men
and women. A balanced U.S. space program
needs and will continue to need both.

8
 p

The retrieval, repair and redeployment of the

Solar Max scientific satellite by astronauts in
April, 1984 demonstrated the feasibility of using
the Space Shuttle as a maintenance and repair
depot in space. Future satellites, such as the
Hubble Space Telescope, will benefit greatly from
Space Shuttle servicing. Solar Max was a satellite
that focused upon the Sun, examining solar flares
over a wide range of wavelengths.
 HUMAN
EXPLORATION
Along with the utility of having humans in
space lies the emotional value and intellectual
dimension of human exploration. To deny these
ignores a fundamental dimension of life.
Consider first the emotional value of space
flight. People are human. They react with their
heart as well as their mind. The excitement of
space flight has thrilled people well before Uri
Gagarin and the Mercury astronauts pioneered
manned flight around the Earth. The adventure
of space exploration by men and women, the
purview no longer of fiction but of engineering,
continues to fascinate people here in the United
States and around the globe. No one who has
witnessed the launch of a Saturn V rocket with
Apollo astronauts on board or seen the Space
Shuttle lift off from Cape Canaveral can fail to
experience the excitement. An adventure has
begun. Despite the display of technology, the
adventure is intensely personal. Being there,
seeing it and hearing it, compels you to wish the
astronauts God Speed as they are hurtled into
10 space. A Shuttle launch leads to a binding, an
awareness of a common trait shared with the
crew and with the people who are there. We are
all human beings. Our lives are intertwined. Our
future is one. Their success is our success. In
times of triumph and, as we learned with the loss
of Challenger, in times of tragedy, space explora-
tion expresses a profound sense of brotherhood.
The intellectual character of manned space
flight is no less real than its emotional dimen-
sion. We place men and women into orbit in
order to learn. Learning is not the only reason,
but it is an important reason. Exploration is a
human imperative laced with a sense of adven-
ture, buttressed by a need to know. Being there
in person enables us to know more. Astronauts
(and cosmonauts) can see and measure and look
further still. They question and think and ques-
tion again. Until we are physically there, we will
not fully understand. This need to know has
driven human exploration throughout the ages.
It drove Vasco de Gama to the Cape of Good
Hope. It sent seaman such as Cabot and
Frosbisher to Canadian waters in quest of a
Northwest Passage. It sent Lewis and Clark up
the Mississippi River. It drove the great navi-
gators Cook and deBougainville to the South-
west Pacific. Of course, it was not just a pure
desire to explore that propelled these astronauts
of their day. Nationalism, the scent of profit and
what Daniel Boone called "Elbow Room,"
contributed, but the necessity of learning played
a key part. Men and women are more than eco-
nomic creatures and patriots. They are seekers
of knowledge, inquisitive types, who are borne
with a desire to learn. Curiosity motivates
human behavior. The exploration of space by
men and women reflects this. It adds to our
understanding. It stimulates our minds. It
enables us to question further and to delve
deeper.
 l!

The United States space program utilizes both

unmanned spacecraft and manned space flight.
Each mode is beneficial and each has its place in
NASA's overall strategy. Human beings
enormously enhance a spacecraft's capabilities.
After all, human beings are the most
sophisticated machines of all. Their creativity,
their dexterity, their ability to perceive, their
interaction with instruments and each other, and
their ability to respond to the unexpected are
unmatched.
 _4. _- i_I ,, ._ ._

NATIONAL
SPACE POLICY
Human exploration of space is not just a mis-
sion of NASA or simply the dreams of a few
visionaries. It is an objective of the United States
government and is reflected in our national
space policy. Adopted in early 1988, this space
policy sets forth a set of goals and objectives to
direct U.S. efforts in space for the future. The
policy, manifested through a Presidential direc-
tive, reaffirms the national commitment to the
exploration and use of space. It sets, as a long-
term goal, human expansion beyond Earth orbit.
It acknowledges that U.S. space activities are
conducted by three separate and distinct (though
interactive) sectors: civil, national security, and
commercial. Most importantly, the directive
states that a fundamental objective guiding U.S.
activities in space has been, and continues to be,
leadership in space.
The policy directs NASA to conduct a bal-
anced program of manned and unmanned space
exploration. Preeminence in critical aspects of
manned space flight is mandated. The policy
12 sees efforts to improve Space Shuttle perform-
ance and to develop the Space Station as
intended to ensure such preeminence. Indeed, I
believe these efforts are vital. A robust Shuttle
fleet and a permanently manned Station are
essential to the United States. Without them, the
1990's and the first decade of the twenty-first
century would be a time when our abdication of
space leadership becomes evident.
Our national space policy speaks directly to
the subject of space transportation. It recognizes
the link between transportation and the benefits
of space. The policy calls for assured access to
space and for transportation capabilities in space.
It states the U.S. space transportation systems
must provide a balanced, robust and flexible cap-
ability. The system must be sufficiently resilient
to allow continued operations despite failures in
any single system. The policy further states that
we will exploit the unique attributes of both
manned and unmanned launch systems. It
encourages the development of private sector
space transportation systems. It sets as a goal the
reduction of space transportation costs.
 COMPETITION
IN SPACE FLIGHT
The Space Shuttle is a unique space launch
system. It is "man-rated" and reusable and has
carried a vast amount of cargo into space. It also
has carried cargo back from space. The Soviet
Union will soon be flying a Shuttle-like reusable
craft to carry cosmonauts and cargo into space
and back. In the 1990's, the Soviet Shuttle no
doubt will be a regular caller at MIR, the Soviet
space station. Mated to the Energia launch
vehicle, the world's largest rocket, the Soviet
Shuttle will comprise an impressive capability.
The Soviet record in space is already impressive.
At the end of 1987, of the 1,736 payloads in
orbit, more than half (1,045) belong to the
Soviet Union. The Soviets are totally committed
to space. They recognize fully its many benefits.
However, the two superpowers are not the
only countries in the business of manned space
flight. The countries of Europe, organized as the
European Space Agency (ESA), have built the
Spacelab and have established a small corps of
astronauts. Some of these astronauts have flown
in the Shuttle. Spacelab is a highly capable lab- 13
oratory in space whose development enabled the
Europeans to gain manned space flight experi-
ence at bargain prices. Europe's stated goal in
space is autonomous manned capabilities. To
achieve this, ESA has begun development plan-
ning for the Ariane V launch vehicle and the
Hermes manned space plane. The former is an
advanced technology heavy lift expendable
launch vehicle. The latter is a small reusable
space plane whose first manned flight is targeted
for 1999. An illustration of the Hermes craft
atop an Ariane V is shown on page 14.
Competition among nations in expendable
launch vehicles is substantial. While manned
space flight at present is dominated by the
United States and the Soviet Union, a number of
countries build and market unmanned expend-
able vehicles. One of the most successful
vehicles is Ariane. Built by the Europeans, and
marketed commercially by a private company,
Ariane has placed in orbit both communications
satellites and scientific spacecraft. Launched
from the ESA facilities in Kourou, Guiana,
Ariane has flown 23 times since 1979. Nineteen
of these flights have been successful, four have
failed. China too is now in the expendable
launch vehicle business. Its Long March vehicle
has flown successfully and is offered for sale on
the world market. Japan is also building launch
14

Both the Ariane V launch vehicle and the Hermes

manned space plane (both illustrated here) are
under development in Europe.

vehicles. Its H-I rocket, based on U.S technol-

ogy, has carried Japanese scientific spacecraft
into orbit. Now in development is the H-II. This
three-stage heavy lift vehicle will have an
advanced liquid hydrogen-oxygen engine.
Developed solely by the Japanese, the H-II is
scheduled to become operational in the early
1990's. No doubt, it will make its presence felt.
The Soviet Union also flies unmanned vehicles.
The Proton rocket is the workhorse of the So-
viet rocket fleet and recently has been offered
commercially. Difficulties with utilizing Proton
exist, but the Soviets are making a concerted
effort to market the vehicle.
 International competition in expendable
launch vehicles is stiff. Europe, China, Japan,
and the Soviet Union are flying vehicles now
that compete with U.S. expendable launch ve-
hicles. Moreover, they are developing more
advanced rockets that will compete in the future.
The extent of the competition reflects the
maturity and availability of rocket technology. It
also reflects the heavy demand for launch serv-
ices which itself demonstrates the commercial
and scientific value of space.
U.S. expendable launch vehicles, however,
constitute an impressive capability. Given a level
playing field, they can more than hold their own.
With demand fostered by NASA and the
Department of Defense, U.S. industry has sup-
plied a variety of reliable vehicles to meet a
diverse set of requirements. The Scout vehicle,

U.S. Launch Vehicles

15

Scout Delta Delta 2 Atlas 1 Atlas 2 Titan 3 Titan 4 Shuttle

4781bs. 7,8001bs. 11,1001bs. 12,3001bs. 14,4001bs. 33,0001bs. 40,0001bs. 88,O001bs.

Pounds to Low Earth Orbit

built by the LTV Corporation, lifts small pay-

loads into orbit. The Delta launch vehicle,
manufactured by McDonnell Douglas, carries
medium-sized payloads aloft and is a mainstay of
the fleet. The Atlas vehicle, built by General
Dynamics, lifts larger, intermediate payloads
into orbit while Martin Marietta's Titan launch
vehicle places heavy payloads into their orbital
positions. These expendable launch vehicles are
illustrated here as are foreign vehicles.
 The national space policy directs NASA to
procure expendable launch services from the
commercial space sector. The commercial
launch services industry is now a reality. The
U.S. space policy is intended to enhance the
competitive posture of the American expend-
able launch vehicle industry.

Launch Vehicles of
Europe, Japan and China

16

Long Long
Ariane 3 Ariane 4 Ariane 5 H-1 H-2 March 3 March 4
(Europe) (Europe) (Europe) (Japan) (Japan) (China) (China)
5,690 Ibs. 9,260 Ibs. 14,960 Ibs. 2,300 Ibs. 9,000 Ibs. 5,500 Ibs. 8,800 Ibs.

Pounds to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit

Energia Heavy
Soviet Launch Vehicles Lift Vehicle

200 FT

100 FT

SL-3 SL-4 SL-6 SL-8 SL-11 SL-12 SL-13 SL-14 SL-16 Shuttle Cargo
13,900 Ibs. 4,600 Ibs. 8,800 Ibs. 43,000 Ibs. 33,000 Ibs. 220,000 Ibs.
16,500 Ibs. 3,800 Ibs. 43,000 Ibs. 12,100 Ibs. 66,000 Ibs.

Pounds to Low Earth Orbit

 TOMORROW'S
LAUNCH VEHICLES
The U.S. expendable launch vehicle industry
is developing advanced versions of current
expendable vehicles. Most noteworthy are the
Titan 4, Atlas 2 and Delta 2 vehicles of Martin
Marietta, General Dynamics, and McDonnell
Douglas, respectively. They reflect not only new
requirements but the inevitable tendency in
aerospace to upgrade performance through
steady improvement. These new vehicles will
ensure a competitive expendable launch vehicle
fleet in the early 1990's, although the com-
petition is clearly intent upon reducing the
United States' market share of the launch
business.
Despite the relative strength of the U.S.
expendable launch fleet, there is cause for con-
cern. Space transportation is an expensive
proposition, and the vehicles we now have or are
designing cannot lift the heavy payloads we will
have in the next century. Reducing the cost of
access to orbit is essential. So is increasing the
performance of the next generation of launch
vehicles. What is required are new technologies 17
and, in effect, an advanced launch system. We
need new launch vehicles that carry more and
cost less. High performance, simple systems,
large payload volume and robust and resilient
design margins are required. Manufacturing and
operational characteristics that emphasize
automation, simplicity and reliability are also
required.
NASA and the Air Force have a joint pro-
gram to develop such an advanced launch
system. It focuses upon technology and an end-
to-end manufacturing system necessary to
sustain an efficient production capability. The
joint program has gotten off to a strong start.
The advanced launch system is a research activity
which will lead to a development effort. I believe
it will result in a new family of launch vehicles
that will carry us into the twenty-first century. It
is an essential national investment.
 ,_#t,l,z:ng Shuttle hardware and experience, NASA
could develop an unmanned version of the Space
Shuttle that substitutes a large cargo carrier for
the manned orbiter. Shuttle-C, as this concept is
termed, is an attractive option providing an
interim heavy lift capability at reduced expense.
ShutUe.C is currently being defined by NASA and
U.S. industry. Companies involved include
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, Rockwell
International, and Martin Marietta which provided
this illustration.

One heavy lift launch vehicle we might

develop would be based upon the Space Shuttle.
Utilizing Shuttle hardware, and experience,
NASA could develop an unmanned version that
substitutes a large cargo carrier for the manned
orbiter. Shuttle-C (C for Cargo), as this concept
is termed, is an attractive option. It would pro-
vide an interim heavy lift capability without the
expense of building an entirely new system. It
would take advantage of Shuttle technology,
hardware, and flight experience. The Shuttle-C
concept is illustrated above. NASA has con-
ducted preliminary analysis establishing the
feasibility of Shuttle-C. It would be a sound
investment.
 SHUTTLE RECOVERY
AND IMPROVEMENT
The time when the Space Shuttle did not fly
was time well spent by NASA. When we look
back at 1986-1988, we will see it as a time when
NASA and the country took an unwanted, but
necessary, breather in the space program. Dur-
ing this time, we took a hard look at ourselves
and at what we hoped to accomplish in space.
What we saw was solid. Some things needed
changing and changes were made. It was a time
of introspection, not without pain, but mostly it
was a time when we recharted our course and
rededicated ourselves to space exploration. The
shock and grief of Challenger never affected our
determination to rebuild and fly again.
Policy issues were reexamined and, from the
debate, a new space policy emerged. Require-
ments for launch vehicles were analyzed, and the
concept of a mixed fleet was adopted. From this
concept will come expendable launch vehicles
for today and an advanced launch system for
tomorrow. The role of the Space Shuttle was
looked at too. The result was a recommitment to
manned space flight, declared not just by words 19
but by the decision to build a replacement
orbiter. The Shuttle fleet will be brought back
up to four. In 1991, a new orbiter will join
Columbia, Discovery, and Atlantis.
The Shuttle system itself was thoroughly
reexamined. A Failure Mode Effects Analysis,
Hazard Analysis, and Criticality Review were
performed on virtually every aspect of the pro-
gram, extending to both ground and flight
operations. The certification process for each
item of hardware was examined in detail. Atten-
tion was devoted to areas that directly influence
flight safety and mission success. An audit panel
appointed by the National Research Council
(NRC) verified the adequacy of the review
effort. The NASA committees in the Senate and
the House of Representatives conducted over-
sight hearings to monitor the effort. The review
resulted in many redesigns that improved the
Space Shuttle system. The process was scruti-
nized at each step of design and testing by the
NRC, which reported its findings to Congress
and to the Administrator.
Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) field joints,
case-to-nozzle joints, and nozzle assemblies
were redesigned and verified in extensive testing
which included five full-scale motor firings. The
redesigned joints performed flawlessly--so well,
in fact, that deliberate flaws had to be introduced
into test articles to assess their redundant
 characteristics. The Space Shuttle Main Engines
(SSME)underwent more testing since the Chal-
lenger accident than than they did prior to the
first Shuttle flight. One engine underwent test-
ing to the equivalent of 80 flights. The design
limit is 10 flights. Improvements were made to
valves, plumbing, and engine subsystems. New
inspection techniques were developed to detect
flawsin welds and structural integrity. Such scru-
tiny was not restricted to hardware.
Management issues received comparable
attention. The launch decision making process
was reviewed and improvements were made in
training, definition of responsibilities, and
communications. Safety issues received renewed
emphasis, and an Associate Administrator for
Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and Quality
Assurance was established. The Space Shuttle
office was extensively restructured. The "lead
center" concept--under which particular field
centers exercised control over certain pro-
grams--was abolished, and in its place a strong
central authority was created at the Head-
quarters level. A safety reporting program was
established, modeled after a system used by the
20 Federal Aviation Agency.
Concurrent with the recovery program,
NASA continued to look at waysto improve the
Shuttle's overall performance. A good flying
machine is one that lends itself to incremental
improvements over time. The Shuttle is such a
machine. Two such improvements are under
way. One deals with reaching space, the other
with time on orbit. The first change is to the
booster rocket. A new Advanced Solid Rocket
Motor (ASRM) will be built to replace the
booster we are now using. Safer and more reli-
able, the ASRM also will enhance performance.
ASRM is scheduled to fly in 1994. The second
improvement is called the Extended Duration
Orbiter (EDO). Not a new vehicle, but rather a
kit to be carried in the Shuttle's payload bay, the
EDO will enable the orbiter to remain in space
for longer periods of time. Carrying the nec-
essary consumables, it will extend the astronaut's
stay from 8 days in space to approximately 16
days. More time on orbit will enable men and
women to better utilize the Shuttle as aplatform
for science, commerce, and technology. While
no substitute for a permanently manned
presence in space, the EDO is an important,
interim step.
 2]

_he Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). The

world's most advanced liquid rocket engine, the
SSME is reusable and delivers more thrust per
pound than any engine in the world. Three such
engines are part of the Shuttle system along with
two Solid Rocket Boosters. Together, the three
SSME's develop 37 million horsepower.
 A NEW SHUTTLE
FOR THE
NEW CENTURY
The Space Shuttle will fly into the next cen-
tury. The first orbiter, Columbia, first flew in
1981. I have no doubt it will still be flying in the
year 2005. As we build up to a steady flight rate
of 12-14 Shuttle flights a year, these remarkable
vehicles will be hauling payloads and people into
and back from orbit. Complemented by expend-
able launch vehicles, they will remain the
backbone of our space transportation system.
Yet it is not too soon to begin thinking about
what vehicle will follow our present Space Shut-
tle. Though durable, Columbia, Discovery,
Atlantis, and the replacement orbiter will not fly
forever. A few years into the twenty-first cen-
tury, we should be building the first of the new
reusable, man-rated spacecraft.
The next century may seem far away. It's not.
Moreover, concept definition and preliminary
design of the new craft will take 3-4 years; tech-
nology development will require more. Actually
building the vehicle will take 4-5 years, and test
22 and checkout will add another year or two. Like
any major space flight development effort, the
program will need about 10 years. So it is appro-
priate for us now to start considering what the
new Shuttle should be like. Once the develop-
ment cycle of the Space Station is behind us, in
the early 1990's, NASA will be in a position to
initiate the effort.
It is imperative that by the year 2005 or
2010, the United States has the new Shuttle
operational. In the new century, space will con-
tinue to be a place for the advancement of
science, the conduct of business and the
development of technology. The practical ben-
efits of space will increase, as will our everyday
dependency upon spacecraft. Human explora-
tion will continue too. The imperative to explore
will place men and women in space. If not
Americans, then the Russians, the Europeans, or
the Japanese will push the space frontiers of
adventure and knowledge. The new Space Shut-
tle will ensure that the United States will
continue to lead the way.
 ith the Space Station, the United States will
establish a permanently manned presence in
space. No longer will we visit space, we will be
there. An orbiting laboratory for science,
technology and commerce, the Space Station will
become operational in the mid.1990's and assure
for the United States a position of leadership. The
Space Shuttle will carry Station elements into
orbit, help assemble the Station and then with five
flights a year sustain Space Station operations.
Unmanned lauch vehicles will probably
complement the Shuttle in providing operational
support.
 WE CAN BE WHAT
WE WANT TO BE
The space program of the United States is
extraordinary. Technologically superb, intellec-
tually rewarding, rich in heritage, witness to
tragedy yet filled with triumph, the space pro-
gram isa reflection of our country at its best. It is
a success story of which we all can all be proud.
Today, our space program is at a crossroads.
The Challenger loss is behind us and the Space
Shuttle is returning to flight.
So we must now decide what our future in
space will be. 1988 and 1989, and perhaps a year
or two beyond, will set the course of NASA and
America's space program for the next two dec-
ades. We have the technology and the experi-
ence to be the best. We must decide if the
twenty-first century will see the United States as
the preeminent spacefaring nation or simply one
of several nations in space. We have the capabil-
ity to be what we want to be. We can lead as we
have done in the past, or we can simply remain a
principal player. The choice is ours.

24